Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1089

Filed 08/22/16

Page 1 of 2

FILED2"2 AIJ; '16 08:50UsDC-i'


United States of America,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Shawna Cox,
Defendant

Judge: Hon. Anna J. Brown

NOTICE OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

COMES NOW, Shawna Cox, Defendant, with this Notice of Affirmative Defenses.

Rule 12{b)(3) ofthe Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that certain motions must be
made before trial. Furthermore, Rule 12 (e) (e) states that such defenses are waived if not
timely made.
Accordingly, the Defendant asserts the following affirmative defenses (which are widely
recognized). Recognition that any of these defenses are valid will necessitate dismissal of the
relevant count(s):
1.
Intervening cause. Evidence will establish that the Defendants DID NOT prevent or
conspire to prevent federal agents from performing any duties. It was THE GOVERNMENT
which prevented any federal agents from performing duties at the Malheur Refuge.
2.

Failure to Mitigate Damages. The government appears to be asserting that Defendants

caused large amounts of monetary damages. The government's claims appear to be wideranging and include such claims as that agencies restructured their organizations or transferred
personnel on a massive scale in response to actions of defendants, and even that irrigation
schedules at the Refuge were interrupted causing damages in the six figures. It is well-settled
in civil cases that plaintiffs asserting monetary damages have fiduciary duties to be responsible
and frugal with money and resources even when suffering legal harms.11J.[1] Plaintiffs cannot
collect money where they could have prevented the damage.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1089

Filed 08/22/16

Page 2 of 2

3.
Claimant's own conduct, or the conduct of its agents. Along the Same lines, the massive
dollar amounts suggested by the Government WERE THE PRODUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
OWN CONDUCT. This is a complete, affirmative defense to the government's monetary claims.
4.
Permission/invitation. This is an ancient affirmative defense to accusations of trespass
actions or unlawful occupation. Defendant will show by preponderance of evidence that
Defendants entered and occupied the property by permission of invitation of government
officials.
ADDITIONALLY, THE DEFENDANT ASSERTS THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES:
5.

The First Amendment protections of Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Peaceably

Assemble, and Freedom to Petition for Redress of Grievances.


6.

The Second Amendment Right to Keep and "bear" Arms (emphasis on 'bear'

intentional).
7.

The governmenrs lack of lawful or constitutional jurisdiction over the Malheur Refuge.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Shawna Cox, do hereby certify and attest that on August 22, 2016. I sent copies of this
docum~t

By

to all parties of this case through the Courrs electronic system.

..{.:;;k/~ ~
Shawna Cox

Dated : August 22, 2016

Оценить